If the victim node reaches July 2024, and the attacker launches a Sybil attack on him with 0.1% of the hashrate, mining a block will take him 10/0.001 = 10,000 minutes, which is like a week. The victim can just look it up, if they notice they're stuck at the same block for days. If they don't, it's likely that their software might not even accept the block, even if its timestamp is altered to look as if it was mined a few minutes after the previous one, because the computer's clock would be far into the future. (And this would alarm the client.)

So, yes. That's why I don't see why eclipse or sybil attacks are so concerning. The worst they can do is network disruption. (More common if your only network is Tor.)

Even Blockchair decided to stop hosting the BSV blockchain explorer...: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/vi3ui6/the_reality_is_that_9999_or_so_of_bitcoin_sv/

You mean from 4 vMB to 8 vMB? The block size is not 1 MB, this is 2024!

I believe they're all quite sustainable, but beyond that, it'd be noticeably harmful for the ecosystem.

Once, you told me that I see Bitcoin as a "golden goose", which shouldn't change. What you're proposing has already been implemented and has a pretty active community; it's called Bitcoin Cash. You're in denial about the fact that what you're suggesting already exists. You just don't like that, financially speaking, the majority does not follow that protocol. It seems to me that you don't actually want to change the protocol just for the sake of having one with large blocks; as I said, this already exists. What you want is to force a change in behavior.

Isn't that it? If that's so, then who's really seeing it as "golden goose"?